Jim & Kat on Navigator: our 1st cruise --commentary & thoughts

[RachelG]

Alaska cruises are wonderful, but just a totally different thing than an arctic or Antarctica cruise. I would not totally discount one, Kat. We have been on two and are scheduled for another in 2016 which sails Vancouver to Vancouver which is awesome for us as far as convenience.

[OctoberKat]

Thanks to Rachel, portofinoitaly and Hambagahle ... I'm more interested in Alaska. Plus, the ease, convenience and lack of air travel cost / hassle of San Francisco embarkation / disembarkation speak loudly.

 

Already booked aboard Seabourn Quest in a royal suite for 15-night Norwegian Fjords cruise in July 2016.

 

I confess the ability to natter here about cruising surely is part and parcel of the attraction.

[Travelcat2]

EDITING TO ADD: I just saw your comment on another thread about Seabourn allowing smoking on the patios. Got it. Although since you seem to typically book a penthouse suite on Regent, could you not book one of the penthouse suites at the front of the ship so you would be unaware of any nearby smoker whenever the ship is moving (e.g. no suite in front of you for smoke to blow back at you)? Neither my wife nor I are fans of smoke, but based on reading lots people say it didn't adversely affect their trip, we decided to give Seabourn a try.

Eric

 

So you "did" or are "going to" give Seabourn a try? There was also a recent thread (cannot even recall where it was) that indicated that you could also smell smoke in some parts of the ship. Perhaps there is a lounge where part of it remains smoking and part non-smoking? If we were not satisfied with the cruise lines that we have cruised in the past couple of years (Regent, Silversea and Oceania), we would give it more serious consideration. At this point in our cruising lives, we are not as open to trying more cruise lines (although we are still on the Seabourn mailing list).

[Travelcat2]

Alaska cruises are wonderful, but just a totally different thing than an arctic or Antarctica cruise. I would not totally discount one, Kat. We have been on two and are scheduled for another in 2016 which sails Vancouver to Vancouver which is awesome for us as far as convenience.

 

We are booked on the same cruise -- amazing that we may finally meet:-) Could not resist a Vancouver to Vancouver itinerary since the port is 50 miles from our home.

[RachelG]

Excited to finally meet you, travelcat! Very much looking forward to the cruise. Does your husband like to fish? Reason I am asking is that george loves fishing. Me, not so much. So I am trying to find him a fishing buddy, as otherwise I will have to go at least once. Not my idea of a fun cruise.

[Travelcat2]

Excited to finally meet you, travelcat! Very much looking forward to the cruise. Does your husband like to fish? Reason I am asking is that george loves fishing. Me, not so much. So I am trying to find him a fishing buddy, as otherwise I will have to go at least once. Not my idea of a fun cruise.

 

He isn't into fishing but we'll enjoy hearing about what he (or you) caught. Can you take it onboard and have it cooked?

[OctoberKat]

Unless we stumble into a very convenient, very good deal, our next sojourn on the water is July on the canals of Burgundy aboard Belmond's Amaryllis hotel barge for La Semaine des Grand

Crus (including the opportunity to quaff La Romanée-Conti). Last summer we barged through the upper Loire (so to speak) and were so enchanted we resolved a repeat cruise was required.

 

Not much on CC about barging, harrumph.

[Emperor Norton]

Have you checked the river cruising forum here?

[OctoberKat]

Yes, Emperor, but little joy there. A paltry few threads on barging but it's mostly all rivers all the time. Some may think these two types of cruises are similar but not so.

Edited March 3, 2015 by OctoberKat

[RachelG]

He isn't into fishing but we'll enjoy hearing about what he (or you) caught. Can you take it onboard and have it cooked?

 

We have taken mussels which George harvested onboard and had them cooked, so I am thinking we should be able to with fish as well.

[newlondon]

You sure got that right Octoberkat:eek:

10 v 120 passengers sure makes a difference

[OctoberKat]

You sure got that right Octoberkat:eek:

10 v 120 passengers sure makes a difference

 

In fact!

 

Meanwhile, here's what we've got booked (for now) after July's Burgundy barge cruise:

 

November -- Barbados-Amazon-Barbados, Silversea

March 2016 -- Los Angeles - Fort Lauderdale via Panama Canal, Seanourn

June 2016 -- Norwegian Fjords, Seabourn

Edited March 7, 2015 by OctoberKat

[OctoberKat]

Sometimes you guess correctly and sometimes you don't. But I was indeed correct in my bet that a smaller ship would suit us better than a larger one. Hence the bookings cited above on Seabourn and Silversea. Yet I confess to an interest in Oceania so keeping that line front of mind. Still can't bring myself to seriously consider Crystal which seems a more dress-conscious environment.

[Baggywrinkle99]

We've never thought Crystal was more "hung up" on dress codes than any other top line but maybe they are more consistently enforced by Crystal's maître d's who get top prize for scary! ;)

[Travelcat2]

We've never thought Crystal was more "hung up" on dress codes than any other top line but maybe they are more consistently enforced by Crystal's maître d's who get top prize for scary! ;)

 

That is so interesting (especially about the scary maître d's). While we have not sailed on Crystal, of the lines we have sailed, Silversea is absolutely the most formal cruise line. Either it is a night when many men wear tuxes (formal nights) or a jacket is required (think they are called "informal" nights -- the same as Regent was under their prior dress code.) I believe that on our last Silversea cruise, out of 14 nights, 3 or 4 were considered "casual". It seems that all luxury lines have eased up on formality..... with the exception of Silversea (and it was quite clear from reading the Silversea boards that the passengers do not want a change).

 

Sorry for the off-topic post but this thread has wandered to barges, etc. It seems relevant in terms of luxury line dress codes that was brought up by a prior poster that will be sailing on Silversea and thought that Crystal may be too dress conscious.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Travelcat2

[OctoberKat]

Speaking of maître d's, I confess I was unwowed by those at Navigator's Compass Rose who seemed to equate elegance with a solemn visage. Where's the fun?!

[OctoberKat]

Of course past cruising informs future sailings so it was with interest I learned my dear friend and hair stylist (no novice to cruising) enjoyed my observations of our recent Navigator cruise. He is a veteran Seabourn cruiser who is embarking on his first Oceania cruise next spring. Anticipating hearing his views of this line and the particular cruise ... to Tahiti, (a flight too far for me and Jim however entrancing the itinerary).

[TrulyBlonde]

Of course past cruising informs future sailings so it was with interest I learned my dear friend and hair stylist (no novice to cruising) enjoyed my observations of our recent Navigator cruise. He is a veteran Seabourn cruiser who is embarking on his first Oceania cruise next spring. Anticipating hearing his views of this line and the particular cruise ... to Tahiti, (a flight too far for me and Jim however entrancing the itinerary).

 

OctoberKat, Re: Tahiti..The flight from the West coast to Tahiti is one movie longer than Hawaii ;-) or you could cruise from West coast to Hawaii and take a short flight there. It is truly one of my favorite cruises and experiences and I flew from NY. Grueling from there, YES! but not disappointed. My suggestion (and I love O) would be to take PG for that cruise vs: O. They do it best and it is truly delightful.

[OctoberKat]

I'll keep that in mind, portofinoitaly. Would love to cruise Tahiti as well as Fiji but jet lag really whacks me.

[OctoberKat]

Over a month now since we disembarked our Regent Navigator cruise in Miami. Impressions have marinated and settled and I am ready to distill essences of the experience.

 

You know how, on your first day and maybe the second too, everything seems fabulous? It's all new, shiny, different, beautiful, exciting and marvelous. It was like that for our first day and then it wasn't. Although, overall, it was a fine voyage.

 

We entirely adored being at sea, in good weather and bad (except at Key West when we wanted to go ashore and it was pelting heavy rain). The ocean, the air, the wind, the forward impetus, sense of movement, the rock and roll -- all that was finest kind, it always felt like an adventure, so very different from our routine lives. It's all this that sends us looting the bank for more cruises.

 

Navigator was pleasant, fine for our first cruise. Worn carpets were surprising, the clunky furniture annoying both physically and visually (yes, I know furniture must be weighted in case of high seas but that doesn't have to equate to clunky). There was plenty of room in Compass Rose; La Veranda/Setti Mare was crowded as was Prime 7. Most other public venues were spacious enough despite gargantuan furniture. The one exception was shaded lounge area on the pool deck.

 

Our master suite was wonderful and made all the difference. The veranda was smaller than expected but did the trick in giving us expanded and private access to the sea and air. Loved it. We could not sail in the regular Regent suite (and I contest the notion that it is a suite) but that is true, I expect, of all the near entry cabins/"suites" of the various luxury lines. We simply need a lot of lebensraum and are willing to pay for it.

 

Food was up and down and the ups weren't stratospheric and the downs weren't disasters. I had a lovely lobster dish but ... it was such a tiny amount of, er, tail. Yes, yes, I know one may ask for more. But, on a luxury cruise, I would hope to be served a goodly portion of lobster from the get go without having to ask for seconds. Overall, food was a let down. Afternoon tea leaves much to be desired but, hey, it's still tea with very tasty scones. The venue for tea is too small to accommodate demand. Prime7 was both pretentious and a disappointment. We did not return despite invitations.

 

I think most here are familiar with my enthusiasm for the ice cream bar. Heh.

 

Service was mostly good to excellent and often kindly, few quibbles there. Pool deck service was ho-hum as opposed to elsewhere. It was prompt enough but lacked enthusiasm.

 

As an introduction to cruising, Navigator worked very well. Sufficiently so that we have booked three more cruises in addition to the barge cruise this July on the canals (and wines!) of Burgundy.

 

It's important for first-time "luxury" cruisers to know that luxury at sea does not stack up well with luxury ashore. But, then, being ashore isn't being at sea. Be aware that gap between luxury onshore and the same at sea is wide. No reason not to cruise yet useful to adjust expectations and understand sea luxury is costly indeed.

[Baggywrinkle99]

What a thoughtful summary and you are spot on about what to expect on a luxury cruise compared to a hotel/resort on land. One isn't better/worse than the other, just different in certain respects which some people can happily adapt to and others can't. Most people who return from a cruise with a long list of complaints both justified or otherwise usually embark with stratospheric expectations in the first place which no company can hope to fulfil, although most do their best.

 

As you say, being at sea is a very special experience in itself and for that we are prepared, within reason, to forgive the occasional oversight or shortfall. However, if standards consistently fall below those we know other companies are able to maintain then we will say something.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Baggywrinkle99

[OctoberKat]

Many thanks, baggy, for your welcome response.

 

I should add that before I sailed on Navigator, I checked in here at the CC Regent thread (the one you're reading now) with enthusiasm whereupon I was warned by the cognoscenti that I was due for disappointment because Navigator suffered severe engine vibration issues and public spaces were too small.

 

Thus, I understand how disconcerting it is to read negatively about a ship upon which one is soon to sail. What a let down.

 

We had a good enough cruise although I join travelcat2 in asserting I would not sail again on this vessel sans compelling reasons, in my case that means extraordinary itinerary and discounted pricing for top-level (actual) suites. Navigator, in my experience, was good enough. I'm not so certain Regent was good enough.

 

We did notice significant vibration in aft areas but were not too discomfited. Then, too, our suite was way forward and we weren't subject to routine, constant vibration when we repaired to our wonderful master suite.

Edited March 15, 2015 by OctoberKat

[janecambridge]

Many thanks, baggy, for your welcome response.

 

 

 

Navigator, in my experience, was good enough. I'm not so certain Regent was good enough.

 

.

 

As you know OctoberKat,we were taking our first Regent cruise about the same time as you.I think you summed it up,by saying Navigator was good enough,We loved the ship,the staff and most of the people.But it was not the luxury we expected, when comparing to other cruise lines, certain areas were too small to accommodate the passengers at times.

[TedC]

VOYAGER AND MARINER ARE A TAD LARGER - BUT HOLD 700 PAX. nAVIGATOR HOLDS 490. I LIKE VOYAGER BEST BUT OTHER SHIPS ARE FINE - STILL NOT 1000S OF PAX!

 

 

I'm happy on any Regent ship!

[pingpong1]

".....it was not the luxury we expected, when comparing to other cruise lines, certain areas were too small to accommodate the passengers at times....."

 

Hi Jane (Cambridge). I'm certainly not "wedded" to Regent. Although they are the only ocean cruise line that we have tried so far, I'm quite willing to "shop around" and consider other choices (in the luxury category) for future options.

 

I'm wondering if you (and perhaps OctoberKat) could expand a bit on both of your cruising expectations and tell me what would be required (and which you apparently felt you did not receive) which would have actually met your standards for a "luxury" experience? What things could/should Regent have done to meet those expectation/s of "luxury"? I apologize in advance, if you have listed those things previously. If you have, I must have missed them.

 

Was it mainly the fact that you think the ship was too small for the number of passengers onboard (i.e. crowded public space)? Or were there other shortcomings you experienced (service, amenities, food, etc.) which prevented you from giving Regent a "luxury" rating?

 

I would think that if the ship was bigger, they'd simply try to fit more passengers onboard and the public spaces would still seem too crowded. Or is the problem one of "price vs. value"? Do you think the prices that are charged are simply too high for the total product that is offered?

 

I hope these questions don't cause a big commotion on the thread, but if anyone with substantial cruising experience comes off of a Regent cruise thinking that it was not a "luxury experience", I'd like to know what cruise alternatives they would be comparing it to? :confused: Regards